If god asked you to...

[Politesse]

Sorry, I am not a teacher or guru. If I were I would require you to hand over all your positions, shave your head, and tend to my needs for 20 years or so before we could even begin.

Other than that step out on the journey of self discovery. Or find a teacher. There are reparable and authentic Zen, yoga, Buddhist and other groups around . Whatever floats your boat. For some people it is math or gardening or chess.

An old BC cartoon. Wiley climbs hand over foot up a mountain peak. On the top is sitting a guru. Wiley asks 'What is the meaning of life?'.

Guru replies 'Why should I tell you?'

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am the one who is confused.

You win, you are superior to me.

You're going around telling people they aren't allowed to claim a label if their beliefs don't conform to your expectations, and you think I'm arrogant?

- - - Updated - - -

You win, you are superior to me.

How could that be? Politesse continually claims to know and understand nothing.

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

When did I ever claim not to understand anything, incidentally? I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't understand, but that seems like a very different qiestion to me.

 

[skepticalbip]

You win, you are superior to me.

How could that be? Politesse continually claims to know and understand nothing.

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

But then you seem to judge what others can't know by what you don't know. Example: your rejection of anyone understanding QFT.
.

 

[Politesse]

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

But then you seem to judge what others can't know by what you don't know. Example: your rejection of anyone understanding QFT.
.

When did I reject Quantum Field Theory ???

I like physics.

 

[skepticalbip]

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

But then you seem to judge what others can't know by what you don't know. Example: your rejection of anyone understanding QFT.
.

When did I reject Quantum Field Theory ???

I like physics.

What? You already forgot your exchange with Bilby?

 

[Politesse]

When did I reject Quantum Field Theory ???

I like physics.

What? You already forgot your exchange with Bilby?

I seem to remember it in rather different terms. He was trying to insist that QFT proved his religious beliefs were correct, and I asked for more information. I don't recall passing any verdict on whether or not he was right, though I did question the meaningfulness of the only source he cited.

 

[steve_bank]

You win, you are superior to me.

You're going around telling people they aren't allowed to claim a label if their beliefs don't conform to your expectations, and you think I'm arrogant?

- - - Updated - - -

You win, you are superior to me.

How could that be? Politesse continually claims to know and understand nothing.

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

When did I ever claim not to understand anything, incidentally? I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't understand, but that seems like a very different qiestion to me.

I do not care who you say you are out in the real world.

On the forum what I look for is whether or not you match what you label yourself. Over the past week or so on different threads you seem to reject god, prophesy and the rest yet you invoke scripture in debate. And label yourself a Christian who gets bad reactions from other Christians because of your beliefs.

In context Thomas Jefferson produced a version of the bible yjat removed a lot of the supernatural, yet he belived in an afterlife. Historically he is labeled a Deist.

As I said, whatever floats your boat and gets you trough life. On the forum you generally need to support your position, why are you Christian and in what aspects. I have yet to hear that.

 

[Politesse]

You're going around telling people they aren't allowed to claim a label if their beliefs don't conform to your expectations, and you think I'm arrogant?

- - - Updated - - -

You win, you are superior to me.

How could that be? Politesse continually claims to know and understand nothing.

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

When did I ever claim not to understand anything, incidentally? I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't understand, but that seems like a very different qiestion to me.

I do not care who you say you are out in the real world.

On the forum what I look for is whether or not you match what you label yourself. Over the past week or so on different threads you seem to reject god, prophesy and the rest yet you invoke scripture in debate. And label yourself a Christian who gets bad reactions from other Christians because of your beliefs.

In context Thomas Jefferson produced a version of the bible yjat removed a lot of the supernatural, yet he belived in an afterlife. Historically he is labeled a Deist.

As I said, whatever floats your boat and gets you trough life. On the forum you generally need to support your position, why are you Christian and in what aspects. I have yet to hear that.

I call myself Christian because I belong to a Christian community and draw on Christian mythology and ritual in much of my spiritual life. I am also a part of secularist and Pagan communities, and occasionally use these labels as well. I don't agree that a person should be bound to someone else's notion of orthodoxy just to use a word! I don't really care if you call me a Christian or anything else, though my opinion of your intelligence might suffer a bit if you follow the trend around here and just sling childish insults at me in every other post. I don't know why supposed rationalist groups are so enamored of playground tactics in place of intelligent conversation. That, more than anything, leads me to feel that online atheist communities at least lack any real philosophical or scientific substance, I've been a part of three atheist fora over the years and all considered such juvenile behavior an acceptable mode of discourse. Threads on actual scientific topics, like those lpetrich contributes, tend to die out on the second or third page. I assure you, this is not how actual scientists discuss things.

I find it interesting that you are offended by my discussion of Scripture. Thus forum has an entire subforum dedicated to Scriptural issues. Rhea starts a new thread on some Bible topic or another every other week. Do you find this similarly offensive?

 

[Rhea]

Threads on actual scientific topics, like those lpetrich contributes, tend to die out on the second or third page. I assure you, this is not how actual scientists discuss things.

I find it interesting that you are offended by my discussion of Scripture. Thus forum has an entire subforum dedicated to Scriptural issues. Rhea starts a new thread on some Bible topic or another every other week. Do you find this similarly offensive?

You made me giggle.
He didn’t say he was offended at all. He just said you were confusing.

Also, you must not know many scientists. I totally do. You would not believe what we argue about.

Although, seriously, it’s a lot better than the Christian Forums I tried visiting. That was excrutiating.

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse you would be hard pressed to offend me.

Out in the real world in technology engineers and scientists talk about a lot of things. Salsa recipes, baseball, politics. One physicist I knew was into guns and liked to load his own ammunition. Another physicist was into amateur sports car racing.

Your image of scientist is probably Einstein. The small group of theoretical scientists who are totally immersed everyday. From a bio of Feynman it was said when he could not be found on campus they'd look for him at strip clubs. He liked to sketch.

Discussion is typically both competitive and complementary. Competitive cooperation towards a goal. It can be quite heated and emotional. Scientist is a broad category. It may sound odd, I find the interplay depicted on the TV show CSI not too far off on how teams actually work together.

As to your label I have to say Christian-Pagan is quite humorous. Christians generally pick and choose what they want from scripture to define their faith, but this takes the cake. Christianity and the other two Aramaic faiths are antithetical to paganism.

There are useful things in the bible, but I would hardly call myself Christian if I try to apply them.

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, IOW tolerance.

I am sure there are Christians who wear a cross while fornicating.

 

[Politesse]

As to your label I have to say Christian-Pagan is quite humorous. Christians generally pick and choose what they want from scripture to define their faith, but this takes the cake. Christianity and the other two Aramaic faiths are antithetical to paganism.

Then you don't know much about the history of Christianity. You can reject your mother, but you can never really cast her off. She will always be a part of you. And Christianity's mother was
Neoplatonism.

 

[funinspace]

You're going around telling people they aren't allowed to claim a label if their beliefs don't conform to your expectations, and you think I'm arrogant?

- - - Updated - - -

How could that be? Politesse continually claims to know and understand nothing.

I know a lot of things. What I don't do is ridiculously claim knowledge in areas where no one has any knowledge.

When did I ever claim not to understand anything, incidentally? I'm sure there are plenty of things I don't understand, but that seems like a very different qiestion to me.

I do not care who you say you are out in the real world.

On the forum what I look for is whether or not you match what you label yourself. Over the past week or so on different threads you seem to reject god, prophesy and the rest yet you invoke scripture in debate. And label yourself a Christian who gets bad reactions from other Christians because of your beliefs.

In context Thomas Jefferson produced a version of the bible yjat removed a lot of the supernatural, yet he belived in an afterlife. Historically he is labeled a Deist.

As I said, whatever floats your boat and gets you trough life. On the forum you generally need to support your position, why are you Christian and in what aspects. I have yet to hear that.

I call myself Christian because I belong to a Christian community and draw on Christian mythology and ritual in much of my spiritual life. I am also a part of secularist and Pagan communities, and occasionally use these labels as well. I don't agree that a person should be bound to someone else's notion of orthodoxy just to use a word! I don't really care if you call me a Christian or anything else, though my opinion of your intelligence might suffer a bit if you follow the trend around here and just sling childish insults at me in every other post. I don't know why supposed rationalist groups are so enamored of playground tactics in place of intelligent conversation. That, more than anything, leads me to feel that online atheist communities at least lack any real philosophical or scientific substance, I've been a part of three atheist fora over the years and all considered such juvenile behavior an acceptable mode of discourse. Threads on actual scientific topics, like those lpetrich contributes, tend to die out on the second or third page. I assure you, this is not how actual scientists discuss things.

I find it interesting that you are offended by my discussion of Scripture. Thus forum has an entire subforum dedicated to Scriptural issues. Rhea starts a new thread on some Bible topic or another every other week. Do you find this similarly offensive?

FWIW, I'm cool with your comments, as a non-theist. I'll even give you permission to use the 'Christian' label It is kind of funny how many non-theists seem to need to have Christians be the God-breathed Bible type, or somehow those people just aren't ok... I know and have known lots of people who operate as Christians and don't aspire to hold ever word of the Bible as holy or fully accept XYZ creed. Rev. Shelby Spong among many others would seem to be thrown under the bus... Heck even C. S. Lewis said something to the affect that he considered the OT getting more historical around the time of King David, much like an English King Henry's (I forget which one) historicity in the details.

I'm sure there are Christians who wear crosses while strongly advocating for the 17th war that has them so turned on...yet their theological POV isn't questioned quite so much..

 

[steve_bank]

As to your label I have to say Christian-Pagan is quite humorous. Christians generally pick and choose what they want from scripture to define their faith, but this takes the cake. Christianity and the other two Aramaic faiths are antithetical to paganism.

Then you don't know much about the history of Christianity. You can reject your mother, but you can never really cast her off. She will always be a part of you. And Christianity's mother was
Neoplatonism.

Different people claim Christianity is really this or that. In context of history Jesus was a Greek demigod. Deity for a father and a human mother. The son has some but not all of the powers of the father. The demigod dies in an act of heroism saving the tribe or clan and goes to live with god father. The gospels and the supernatural elements are routine mythology of the times and before then. The theological basis of the gospels is Hebrew tradition. There is nothing attributed to Jesus that has no antecedent in the OT.

What you have as Christianity today is more aptly called Paulism. Jesus said very little. Paul is the dominating influence. He transformed a Jewish heretic group into something for urban gentiles.

Paul makes reference to competing Christyian groups who he says were false.

In the end Christinity today is a hodge podge of many elemts and influences over 2000 years.

It was Aquinas who tried to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christinity.

If you go solei by the gospels and what Jesus said it is simple. Be nice and charitable, the world and judgment is coming. No divorce of fornication. Believe you go to heaven.



If you look at all major religions and moral philosophies, the fundamental principle is the same. The golden rule. Campasion and universal love. What changes are the cultural metaphors. Jesus as the sacrificial lamb is taken from the OT.

In the history of Christianity there have been numerous mystical groups that came and went. More like eastern traditions. Most were suppressed by the Catholics. There is an isolated Greek Orthodox group that essentially lives in a tower in isolation.

There is another group of monks who are open to the public. They farm, fish, and sell inconery to the public. It has been written about and coved on TV. IMO what they practice is what I see as the original Christianity. Living a spiritual life, analogous to say Buddhist spirituality.

 

[Politesse]

As to your label I have to say Christian-Pagan is quite humorous. Christians generally pick and choose what they want from scripture to define their faith, but this takes the cake. Christianity and the other two Aramaic faiths are antithetical to paganism.

Then you don't know much about the history of Christianity. You can reject your mother, but you can never really cast her off. She will always be a part of you. And Christianity's mother was
Neoplatonism.

Different people claim Christianity is really this or that. In context of history Jesus was a Greek demigod. Deity for a father and a human mother. The son has some but not all of the powers of the father. The demigod dies in an act of heroism saving the tribe or clan and goes to live with god father. The gospels and the supernatural elements are routine mythology of the times and before then. The theological basis of the gospels is Hebrew tradition. There is nothing attributed to Jesus that has no antecedent in the OT.

What you have as Christianity today is more aptly called Paulism. Jesus said very little. Paul is the dominating influence. He transformed a Jewish heretic group into something for urban gentiles.

Paul makes reference to competing Christyian groups who he says were false.

In the end Christinity today is a hodge podge of many elemts and influences over 2000 years.

It was Aquinas who tried to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christinity.

If you go solei by the gospels and what Jesus said it is simple. Be nice and charitable, the world and judgment is coming. No divorce of fornication. Believe you go to heaven.



If you look at all major religions and moral philosophies, the fundamental principle is the same. The golden rule. Campasion and universal love. What changes are the cultural metaphors. Jesus as the sacrificial lamb is taken from the OT.

In the history of Christianity there have been numerous mystical groups that came and went. More like eastern traditions. Most were suppressed by the Catholics. There is an isolated Greek Orthodox group that essentially lives in a tower in isolation.

There is another group of monks who are open to the public. They farm, fish, and sell inconery to the public. It has been written about and coved on TV. IMO what they practice is what I see as the original Christianity. Living a spiritual life, analogous to say Buddhist spirituality.

I agree with most of the above. Which is why I see no issue calling a fish a fish. Christianity was originally very openly syncretic, and so am I. In terms of ritual life, it pleases me to honor the traditions snd devotions of all of my ancestors, those Christian and those not.

 

[abaddon]

double post

 

[abaddon]

I find it interesting that you are offended by my discussion of Scripture. Thus forum has an entire subforum dedicated to Scriptural issues. Rhea starts a new thread on some Bible topic or another every other week. Do you find this similarly offensive?

When people seem confused by you, why do you assume it's ignorance, dogmatism or offense on their part rather than the lack of a clarifying statement from you? The confusion happens time and again, so don't you ever stop to wonder "maybe it's me?"? Because it is.

Probably no one has ever tried to "cage" you into a box online. If you're a syncretist answering questions directed at more traditional Christians, then that participation requires some extra clarification. But, too often, when you create confusion, you add to it with obfuscation. When you could just clarify immediately.

Most likely atheists will simply lose interest in you once they find out (eventually, when you're finally in the mood to clarify a little) that you're an agnostic/gnostic Christian syncretist. It's not offensive that you're that. It just isn't the theology atheists tend to focus on since it has no widespread social impact.

 

[Politesse]

When people seem confused by you, why do you assume it's ignorance, dogmatism or offense on their part rather than the lack of a clarifying statement from you? The confusion happens time and again, so don't you ever stop to wonder "maybe it's me?"? Because it is.

Because I've known some of these people for many years, and my position isn't really all that complicated. How confusing is the phrase "I don't know, and neither do you"? For an expert on quantum field theory, agnosticism should not be unfathomably baffling. As for offense, I generally assume that people are offended when they start calling me an idiot, insane, or a liar. Wouldn't you?

Probably no one has ever tried to "cage" you into a box online.

Is this some sort of joke? This is literally 90% of what happens on this site, and not because I am especially interested in the question I assure you. I mean, why are we even discussing my personal social identity in this thread, where it is quite off-topic? I certainly didn't bring it up.

Most likely atheists will simply lose interest in you once they find out (eventually, when you're finally in the mood to clarify a little) that you're an agnostic/gnostic Christian syncretist.

I think this is true, but obviously not true of the particular people pouring out their bile on this and other threads.

 

[steve_bank]

Different people claim Christianity is really this or that. In context of history Jesus was a Greek demigod. Deity for a father and a human mother. The son has some but not all of the powers of the father. The demigod dies in an act of heroism saving the tribe or clan and goes to live with god father. The gospels and the supernatural elements are routine mythology of the times and before then. The theological basis of the gospels is Hebrew tradition. There is nothing attributed to Jesus that has no antecedent in the OT.

What you have as Christianity today is more aptly called Paulism. Jesus said very little. Paul is the dominating influence. He transformed a Jewish heretic group into something for urban gentiles.

Paul makes reference to competing Christyian groups who he says were false.

In the end Christinity today is a hodge podge of many elemts and influences over 2000 years.

It was Aquinas who tried to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christinity.

If you go solei by the gospels and what Jesus said it is simple. Be nice and charitable, the world and judgment is coming. No divorce of fornication. Believe you go to heaven.



If you look at all major religions and moral philosophies, the fundamental principle is the same. The golden rule. Campasion and universal love. What changes are the cultural metaphors. Jesus as the sacrificial lamb is taken from the OT.

In the history of Christianity there have been numerous mystical groups that came and went. More like eastern traditions. Most were suppressed by the Catholics. There is an isolated Greek Orthodox group that essentially lives in a tower in isolation.

There is another group of monks who are open to the public. They farm, fish, and sell inconery to the public. It has been written about and coved on TV. IMO what they practice is what I see as the original Christianity. Living a spiritual life, analogous to say Buddhist spirituality.

I agree with most of the above. Which is why I see no issue calling a fish a fish. Christianity was originally very openly syncretic, and so am I. In terms of ritual life, it pleases me to honor the traditions snd devotions of all of my ancestors, those Christian and those not.

So all that being said why do you consider yourself in part Christian? Why not Neo-Platonic Pagan? Perhaps you have never been tasked like this before.

You did say Xhristianity came from Neo_plaomism. Explain?

All I am interested is how someone trues to live dally life and interact with fellow humans. Do your beliefs set you apart as some faiths do, or do your beliefs unite you with humanity?

What are the basic principles and moral edicts of Neo-Platonic Paganism?

 

[Politesse]

Different people claim Christianity is really this or that. In context of history Jesus was a Greek demigod. Deity for a father and a human mother. The son has some but not all of the powers of the father. The demigod dies in an act of heroism saving the tribe or clan and goes to live with god father. The gospels and the supernatural elements are routine mythology of the times and before then. The theological basis of the gospels is Hebrew tradition. There is nothing attributed to Jesus that has no antecedent in the OT.

What you have as Christianity today is more aptly called Paulism. Jesus said very little. Paul is the dominating influence. He transformed a Jewish heretic group into something for urban gentiles.

Paul makes reference to competing Christyian groups who he says were false.

In the end Christinity today is a hodge podge of many elemts and influences over 2000 years.

It was Aquinas who tried to reconcile Greek philosophy with Christinity.

If you go solei by the gospels and what Jesus said it is simple. Be nice and charitable, the world and judgment is coming. No divorce of fornication. Believe you go to heaven.



If you look at all major religions and moral philosophies, the fundamental principle is the same. The golden rule. Campasion and universal love. What changes are the cultural metaphors. Jesus as the sacrificial lamb is taken from the OT.

In the history of Christianity there have been numerous mystical groups that came and went. More like eastern traditions. Most were suppressed by the Catholics. There is an isolated Greek Orthodox group that essentially lives in a tower in isolation.

There is another group of monks who are open to the public. They farm, fish, and sell inconery to the public. It has been written about and coved on TV. IMO what they practice is what I see as the original Christianity. Living a spiritual life, analogous to say Buddhist spirituality.

I agree with most of the above. Which is why I see no issue calling a fish a fish. Christianity was originally very openly syncretic, and so am I. In terms of ritual life, it pleases me to honor the traditions snd devotions of all of my ancestors, those Christian and those not.

So all that being said why do you consider yourself in part Christian? Why not Neo-Platonic Pagan? Perhaps you have never been tasked like this before.

You did say Xhristianity came from Neo_plaomism. Explain?

All I am interested is how someone trues to live dally life and interact with fellow humans. Do your beliefs set you apart as some faiths do, or do your beliefs unite you with humanity?

What are the basic principles and moral edicts of Neo-Platonic Paganism?

I was raised a Christian and attend Christian churches of a weekend, as I said. Those other labels would also make a certain amount of sense, though I have no special commitment to Platonism. I'm not in fact a metaphysical idealist.

If I felt that any of my beliefs were placing barriers between me and humanity, I would immediately abandon them. My profession demands such contact, even if my principles did not. To me, belief that divides is false belief, in any case. As Jesus himself taught, "how can a good tree bear bad fruit?" The fruits of folly are violence and ignorance.

"Moral edicts" are quite contrary to the Platonic method. Explaining the whole history of Neo-Platonism and its relationship to contemporary Christianity and Paganism respectively would be a bit complicated for a derail; perhaps if there is interest we can start a new thread on the subject.

 

[steve_bank]

Fair enough. I knew an atheist who converted to Catholicism so he could socialize with his wife at church functions.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Converted?
Conformed.